The Enshittification of the Automobile

A good article by Joaquín Peña on his website, “Your new car is 100% yours”, describes a common trend as digitalization takes over: the blurring between product and service, whereby the parts related to a service are billed separately and become, de facto, subscriptions that allow the company to transform an isolated, one-off income into a recurring one.

This is the case with some car companies, which have begun to offer features such as remote engine start, cameras that can record traffic incidents, as well as driving or parking assistants, all paid for through a monthly subscription.

Joaquin isn’t doing a demolition job on car companies, and documents his examples judiciously. As a Tesla owner I pay a subscription fee, which is understandable, given that the vehicle is essentially a “computer on wheels”.

For example, the connectivity needed to offer me maps so I can choose a route based on its occupancy level, or for many other functionalities ranging from knowing its geolocation at all times, seeing what its cameras see, watching Netflix while parked, etc., costs me about €10 a month. I consider it a service that, although it is optional, is essential so as to take advantage of the vehicle’s features, and therefore, I pay for it. Why? Simply because I consider that a flat rate like the one I enjoy has a cost, and the alternative of connecting my own device to provide connectivity, although perfectly possible, is more cumbersome. Does that make my vehicle a service? Undoubtedly, because I have to pay every month to use it, just as I have to pay, if I do, for supercharger recharges.

Updates work in the same way: I didn’t buy a car as a finished product, but as a platform that is updated around once or twice a month on average. When I bought it, my car was unable to recognize, for example, road cones or traffic lights. Now, after successive updates, all of them completely free of charge, it does, and uses the feature to reduce speed when passing by road works if I am self-driving, or to warn me and initiate the vehicle’s movement when the traffic light turns green.

Unfortunately, some features have disappeared, but that’s not Tesla’s fault: the European Union is to blame for not understanding that my vehicle can indicate and change lane if I am self-driving, something that it did when I bought it, but now does not. I would have preferred to make the decision about my protection myself, but that’s not and option.

I’m happy enough with my relationship with Tesla. It’s very different from wanting to charge me for a functionality such as seat heating or camera use, which costs the company nothing, and so would be part of an enshittification process.

On the borderline is the offer Tesla made me a couple of years ago to pay a few thousand dollars more to unlock a motor harnessing feature that would allow me to get more power and improve performance: given that my car is pretty fast anyway, I figured I didn’t need it and simply said no thanks. The upgrade, in the end, would have provided me with a vehicle with more power and, therefore, we could consider it to have a higher market value with respect to the vehicle I purchased, but since it didn’t cost the company anything to activate it and is a benefit, it may generate a certain negativity among some owners.

I would argue that the evolution of products toward becoming services is a reasonable one due to the increasing complexity, not so much mechanical — they’re actually getting simper — but because they’re now connected. However, turning a feature into a service I have to pay for is blackmail, a simple attempt to maximize what the customer has already paid for. But there are other examples that simply make sense, and correspond to the transfer to the customer of a cost, and that the company simply manages, such as connectivity or maintaining a recharging network. In fact, they are accepted as part of the rules of the game, and it seems reasonable that they should evolve as the context evolves.

However… is the automotive industry capable of incorporating these types of issues without falling into enshittification? For the time being, my impression when I see what this industry has to offer is that it is not. But I also think it is interesting to point out the differences, not because I’m a fanboy — although my experience with Tesla has generated a certain loyalty — so as to clarify matters.

—

This post was previously published on Enrique Dans’ blog.

***

You Might Also Like These From The Good Men Project

You Said ‘Race’, but Are You Actually Talking About Race?

Understanding the Nonbinary: Are You Confusing Gender With Sex?

The Difference Between Compassion for Those With Disabilities & Ableism?

‘Masculinity’ Is Having an Identity Crisis